About Damned Time

[Kulaf]

I know WI owns serveral power plants, but I have not read anything about "privatization of the power plants". Are you asserting that WI doesn't have the right to sell it's own assets? Or are you trying to make some wierd claim that WI is trying to sell plants it doesn't own?

Code: Select all

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Without bid solicitation, for any amount. Tell us that's not a complete giveaway.

It certainly could be if the governor wanted to act irresponsibly, but more likely is the streamlining of red tape to help meet budget should the need arrise.

After researching what effect this state bill could possibly have on Medicare.....I think you actually must have meant Medicaid. There is language in the bill that would allow the Dept of Health Services to make provisions without public hearing. Is that what you are talking about?

Yep, shouldn't really be posting at that time, I make mistakes easier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 26821.html

The bill would grant the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) sweeping authority to making changes to the state's Medicaid program -- which covers one in five residents -- with virtually no public scrutiny. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Walker's plan would use "emergency" powers to allow DHS to restrict eligibility, raise premiums and change reimbursements -- all moves traditionally controlled by the legislature.

Part of the reason that advocates are so alarmed at the legislation is that the man who heads DHS is Dennis Smith, someone who has advocated for states to leave the Medicaid program.

In a December 2009 article for the Heritage Foundation, Smith, who was then on staff at the conservative think tank, advocated against health care reform proposals being considered by Congress and argued it would be smart for states to leave the Medicaid program.

Medicaid is a state-federal program, so Wisconsin needs waivers from the federal government to make certain changes, including the one he's proposing. But he's leaving the Obama administration in a tough situation. If Wisconsin doesn't get a waiver by the end of the year, Walker wants to drop adults at a higher income level who aren't pregnant or disabled from Medicaid by July 1, 2012 -- that's approximately 50,000 people -- which Sebelius has told governors is allowed under federal law to help states deal with deficits. Currently, Wisconsin's Medicaid program accepts adults who make up to double the poverty level -- $44,700 for a family of four. This move could save between $57 to $80 million a year.

Walker wants to drop adults at a higher income level who aren't pregnant or disabled from Medicaid by July 1, 2012 -- that's approximately 50,000 people -- which Sebelius has told governors is allowed under federal law to help states deal with deficits. Currently, Wisconsin's Medicaid program accepts adults who make up to double the poverty level -- $44,700 for a family of four. This move could save between $57 to $80 million a year.

What is wrong with that? It seems to be a very measured response to a budget nightmare. It more than adequatly preserves coverage for the most vulnerable. Matter of fact if I remember correctly......it is more than what IL provides.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50568.html

Good for Ohio. This should sail through the Ohio House and be signed into law. And its a very fair bill. I especially like the elimination of pay increase based on time in service, and replacing it with merit increases.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I especially like the elimination of pay increase based on time in service, and replacing it with merit increases.

That was by far my favorite part of it.

[MeGusta]

And its a very fair bill.

I do not think the word "fair" means what you think it means. Do you honestly believe giving politicians the ability to agitate and abuse public safety employees such as policemen and firemen is in any shape or form "fair"?

It is one thing to throw the perennial scapegoat known as teachers under the bus of hypocritical jingoist budget cutting rhetoric, it is quite another to risk public safety by doing the same. I do not subscribe to the antiquated notion that these public employees are some sort of sacred cow but I do know that continually tweaking the nose of the people that are responsible for the protection of life and property is not a smart move.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Do you think its "fair" for the Unions to buy the legislation and candidates that they want?

[MeGusta]

Do you think its "fair" for the Unions to buy the legislation and candidates that they want?

Absolutely. Especially since they spend a fraction of the money that corporations spend for the same purpose. Hypocritical much? Or were you just about to make a long and thoughtful post about the pervasive taint of corporate money in American politics? If so I deeply apologize.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Ok, fair enough. Lets re-frame that.

Do you think its "fair" for Unions to force their members to contribute to a PAC and then support legislation and candidates that their members do not support?

[MeGusta]

I hate to answer a question with a question but are you aware that the membership of a union typically votes for the leadership of their union and in doing so has democratic representation at the level that decides what PAC's to donate to and what candidates to support.

So upon what evidence to you propose that the majority of a membership does not support the actions of their leadership?

[Torakus]

And its a very fair bill.

I do not think the word "fair" means what you think it means. Do you honestly believe giving politicians the ability to agitate and abuse public safety employees such as policemen and firemen is in any shape or form "fair"?

It is one thing to throw the perennial scapegoat known as teachers under the bus of hypocritical jingoist budget cutting rhetoric, it is quite another to risk public safety by doing the same. I do not subscribe to the antiquated notion that these public employees are some sort of sacred cow but I do know that continually tweaking the nose of the people that are responsible for the protection of life and property is not a smart move.

You are kidding right? Do you honestly believe that giving public employees (or more properly their unions) the ability to agitate and abuse the state budget is in any shape or form "fair"?

I don't hear you crying about the end strength draw downs in our military. Far more young men and women who had hoped to make the military a career this year will be sent home with a thank you letter and some tuition money than state employees furloughed from all states combined. But I suppose you think they are not important to your security. I didn't expect it though since the military is the Regressive's scapegoat that gets tossed under the bus of hypocritical jingoist federal budget cutting rhetoric.

Tora

[Kulaf]

I'm just curious who our new poster is. It's not like we draw many new people to the Politics forum. Someone forget their old password and decide to make a new login?

[MeGusta]

You are kidding right? Do you honestly believe that giving public employees (or more properly their unions) the ability to agitate and abuse the state budget is in any shape or form "fair"?

Governors propose and legislators pass state budgets. Not police or firemen. Giving either side total discretion and final authority in any negotiation is ludicrous.

I don't hear you crying about the end strength draw downs in our military. Far more young men and women who had hoped to make the military a career this year will be sent home with a thank you letter and some tuition money than state employees furloughed from all states combined. But I suppose you think they are not important to your security. I didn't expect it though since the military is the Regressive's scapegoat that gets tossed under the bus of hypocritical jingoist federal budget cutting rhetoric.

I do not believe that I have ever had a conversation in which a more obscure or unrelated matter has been brought up. Do you care to compare how the two issues are related and enlighten us to your meaning? Also, I would love to know how you gained your misinformed opinion about my feelings on military strength and draw downs of same.

I'm just curious who our new poster is. It's not like we draw many new people to the Politics forum. Someone forget their old password and decide to make a new login?

Is this question directed at me? Long time board lurker and old school Brell player. MeGusta should suffice for a name.

[Ddrak]

I'm just curious who our new poster is. It's not like we draw many new people to the Politics forum. Someone forget their old password and decide to make a new login?

He/she's new, as far as I can tell. Was the first thing I checked when we got a strong new voice, so welcome~

Dd

[Ddrak]

Good for Ohio. This should sail through the Ohio House and be signed into law. And its a very fair bill. I especially like the elimination of pay increase based on time in service, and replacing it with merit increases.

It's completely stupid and ridiculously unfair.

1. Why is any of this legislated? Anyone remotely libertarian should be horrified at the idea of expanding the power of government into negotiations between employees and employers, especially when the government itself is the employer.
2. Having the employer enabled BY LAW as the final arbiter in disputes between employee and employer is just daft. Where is any "fairness" in that?
3. Public safety roles aside, there is no valid reason to legally treat a public employee any differently to a private employee. If these same laws were passed universally (to public and private sectors) then I'm betting we'd hear all about "big government power grabs". Government employees are just a convenient target for the big-government Republicans too chicken to actually man up and reduce the size of government like they pretend they want to do.
4. Capping negotiations to inflation is daft. That guarantees a declining pay for the public sector, which means you're going to get less and less skilled people into government jobs. Do you really think that's going to make it more efficient? Short sighted idiots - you'd do better increasing the pay to attract the best people back from the private sector.
5. Legislating pay rises to be merit based is more bullshit interference. If the GOP had any balls they could just declare it a policy and enforce it through the government anyway. This way is just a dumb.
6. The legislation to prevent striking is not only mindless thuggery by an employer (in this case an employer with the power to write laws), but ineffective in any case. If you've never seen cops on a "work-to-rule" day then you probably wouldn't get it, but let's just say that any worker that works expressly to the exact limit of what's required in their contract with a very deliberate policy of zero initiative can be far more destructive than someone just not turning up to work. "Oh, I'm sorry your house burned down but we're required to rigorously check all our safety gear before we leave the shop and, well, that takes a while".

So, no. This idiocy that's rampant across the US over increasing the government's power to interfere in employee/employer relations is the antithesis of what any true small-government believer wants. It's in the same class as all the other totalitarian power grabs evidenced by state and federal governments in the last decade.

Employee-employer relationships belong on the negotiating table, not in the courtroom. If the employers (in this case the GOP) don't have the cojones to actually negotiate then their bosses (ie the electorate) should be sending them out of office and getting someone in who WILL negotiate properly. Showing yourself up as a whiney little bitch who has to hide behind the power to legislate instead of negotiate is just self-pwnage in the long run.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I hate to answer a question with a question but are you aware that the membership of a union typically votes for the leadership of their union and in doing so has democratic representation at the level that decides what PAC's to donate to and what candidates to support.

So upon what evidence to you propose that the majority of a membership does not support the actions of their leadership?

Interesting.

You could say that same thing about whats going on with this legislation. The majority voted those representatives in and now a minority is throwing a hissy-fit over something they're doing that will not only better the system (merit-based everything), but also fix the toxic pensions.

[Ddrak]

The majority voted those representatives in and now a minority is throwing a hissy-fit over something they're doing that will not only better the system (merit-based everything), but also fix the toxic pensions.

Why should the legal system be burdened with something that the private sector manages to solve with negotiations? Do you really believe that this should be legislated on?

Would you suggest the same fix for workers at GM or Ford (make it illegal for employees to bargain effectively with their employers) - they both had toxic pensions too?

All I'm getting at is these legislators are gutless freaks. If your workforce is costing too much then man up and cut their pay, or fire a few. Don't go making it illegal for workers to negotiate effectively.

Dd

[MeGusta]

You could say that same thing about whats going on with this legislation. The majority voted those representatives in and now a minority is throwing a hissy-fit over something they're doing that will not only better the system (merit-based everything), but also fix the toxic pensions.

You misunderstand, sir. Having proper democratic representation does not mean that the representation is acting in the best interest of the represented. The point was that they have redress should the representatives be working counter to their interests. They are not simply held captive by the union.

What is more, at least in the case of Wisconsin, it is evident that Governor Walker did not campaign on these solutions to the budget issues and is contradiction with the popular will. It remains to be seen if this will serve to motivate his constituency to exercise their ability to excise him from office.

So, no. This idiocy that's rampant across the US over increasing the government's power to interfere in employee/employer relations is the antithesis of what any true small-government believer wants. It's in the same class as all the other totalitarian power grabs evidenced by state and federal governments in the last decade.

Well said.

He/she's new, as far as I can tell. Was the first thing I checked when we got a strong new voice, so welcome~

I am a he. Thank you for the welcome.

All I'm getting at is these legislators are gutless freaks. If your workforce is costing too much then man up and cut their pay, or fire a few. Don't go making it illegal for workers to negotiate effectively.

This is exactly right. You are the epitome of hypocrisy if you espouse small government and then think giving that same government the power to force its employees to submit to any whim of a politician.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

All I'm getting at is these legislators are gutless freaks. If your workforce is costing too much then man up and cut their pay, or fire a few. Don't go making it illegal for workers to negotiate effectively.

This is exactly right. You are the epitome of hypocrisy if you espouse small government and then think giving that same government the power to force its employees to submit to any whim of a politician.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, thats a very Partha-esque move.

Nowhere in the bill does it say they're going to set contract values and limit what these people are making. Districts will have to work with teachers on a case by case basis to establish salaries and then raises/layoffs will be done on a merit system rather than the antiquated tenure system.

You could say that same thing about whats going on with this legislation. The majority voted those representatives in and now a minority is throwing a hissy-fit over something they're doing that will not only better the system (merit-based everything), but also fix the toxic pensions.

You misunderstand, sir. Having proper democratic representation does not mean that the representation is acting in the best interest of the represented.

Which has been evident in the federal government for several years now. However, Ohio representatives were voted in to do a job which they are doing. Kasich ran on this very platform and got elected over a Pro-Union, Pro-Collective Bargaining candidate (Strickland).

[Kulaf]

Good for Ohio. This should sail through the Ohio House and be signed into law. And its a very fair bill. I especially like the elimination of pay increase based on time in service, and replacing it with merit increases.

It's completely stupid and ridiculously unfair.

1. Why is any of this legislated? Anyone remotely libertarian should be horrified at the idea of expanding the power of government into negotiations between employees and employers, especially when the government itself is the employer.
2. Having the employer enabled BY LAW as the final arbiter in disputes between employee and employer is just daft. Where is any "fairness" in that?
3. Public safety roles aside, there is no valid reason to legally treat a public employee any differently to a private employee. If these same laws were passed universally (to public and private sectors) then I'm betting we'd hear all about "big government power grabs". Government employees are just a convenient target for the big-government Republicans too chicken to actually man up and reduce the size of government like they pretend they want to do.
4. Capping negotiations to inflation is daft. That guarantees a declining pay for the public sector, which means you're going to get less and less skilled people into government jobs. Do you really think that's going to make it more efficient? Short sighted idiots - you'd do better increasing the pay to attract the best people back from the private sector.
5. Legislating pay rises to be merit based is more bullshit interference. If the GOP had any balls they could just declare it a policy and enforce it through the government anyway. This way is just a dumb.
6. The legislation to prevent striking is not only mindless thuggery by an employer (in this case an employer with the power to write laws), but ineffective in any case. If you've never seen cops on a "work-to-rule" day then you probably wouldn't get it, but let's just say that any worker that works expressly to the exact limit of what's required in their contract with a very deliberate policy of zero initiative can be far more destructive than someone just not turning up to work. "Oh, I'm sorry your house burned down but we're required to rigorously check all our safety gear before we leave the shop and, well, that takes a while".

So, no. This idiocy that's rampant across the US over increasing the government's power to interfere in employee/employer relations is the antithesis of what any true small-government believer wants. It's in the same class as all the other totalitarian power grabs evidenced by state and federal governments in the last decade.

Employee-employer relationships belong on the negotiating table, not in the courtroom. If the employers (in this case the GOP) don't have the cojones to actually negotiate then their bosses (ie the electorate) should be sending them out of office and getting someone in who WILL negotiate properly. Showing yourself up as a whiney little bitch who has to hide behind the power to legislate instead of negotiate is just self-pwnage in the long run.

Dd

I am really having a hard time grasping your point as you seem to be fluctuating all over the place.

1) It has to be legislated because that is how the legislature does things. They pass a bill to codify the will of the majority so there is no ambiguity. It is not left to the whim of a negotiator to decide what the goverments position is, it is the law of the state and the person is bound legally to follow it.

2) How is an employer NOT the final arbiter in salary negotiations anywhere else? You can ask for more......you can demand more.......you can threaten to quit if you don't get more, but ultimately it is the employer who decides if you are worth more.

3) How are they being treated differently?

4) Actually they should cap jobs, not cap raises to inflation. They should simply say that the maximum that job X can ever pay is Y. Then they should raise the caps based on inflation. This is what most private sector employers already do without making it publically known. For one it encourages employees to seek advancement through promotion, and it also retards inflation of menial labor jobs to paying more than they should.

5) Not really, because that does not express the will of the legislature, but a will of the governor. If you do not codify, then the governor if free to do what he/she wants as long as it doesn't violate state/federal law. It is the same with our federal government and the issuance of Executive Orders.

6) Then they should be fired. How are you any better off with a bunch of workers who don't want to work than if you just fired them and hired some people who do want to work? You're not. The reason public workers should not be able to strike is because the government as an employer is prevented from closing the doors like a private employer is able to do. There is no "lock out" option for the government......it has to function by public mandate. You cannot have a healthy relationship when only 1 side has the power to enact a work stoppage. How did the UAW finally change its position on pensions and other items? The US automakers threatened to close up shop.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Kulaf made most of my rebuttal for me (thanks). One small point though... I think most government workers (most, not all) have salary caps on positions. They have a low start and a max cap. Once the max cap is reached, then the salary gets COLA adjustments.

And I'll ask again to the defenders of public unions... what is the NEED for a public union? I can find no credible argument for that question. Absent any credible need for a public employee union, the governing body should do everythnig in its power to reduce the demand on the budget, and that would include chopping the unions out thus eliminating the political budgetary pressure to fund massive pensions and out-of-whack benefits. Public worker unions have become nothing more than money-grabbing machines that siphon off taxpayer money to fund largess that the average private sector worker doesn't see.

As to the poster who is a California Highway Patrol officer...

http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/osalary.html

If I understand your retirement package correctly, CHP contributes 8% of your salary to your retirement. The officer contributes nothing. Base pay starts at a little over 65K and tops out at a little over 79K. However, that's a bit misleading, because of all the other bumps you guys get. A more realistic range is on the CHP website, and it lists a starting pay package of $87K and a top out after 5 years.... 5 years... of over $100K. And all of that is used in the calculation for your retirement benefits.

Now the retirement... you guys can get 90% of your highest one year salary as a pension, plus medical and dental. You and I both know that cops and firefighters are notorious for loading up on one year with OT and other compensation to drive that number as high as possible, and in many cases they retire with a benefit that pays them MORE than what they were making in their final year of service. And what's your retirement age? 50? 55?

Those are the types of incredible pensions and benefits that are killing government budgets.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Those are the types of incredible pensions and benefits that are killing government budgets.

Can you demonstrate a private sector equivalent position so we can see how skewed the CHP compensations are by comparison?

In the rest of the world, if someone is overcompensated you return to the table and renegotiate. You don't throw the negotiating table out the window.

Of course, given the reports indicating that WI's public employees are roughly 5% undercompensated as compared to private sector equivalents and Walker getting caught with his pants down in a prank call, this isn't about WI's budget, and we all know it.